Royal

Businesses who are Non-Compliant with Laws are at Risk of the Proverbial Set-Up

October 20, 2022

On October 5, 2022, the First Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals overturned a lower court’s decision, finding that a disabled wheelchair-bound Florida woman, Deborah Laufer, and self-proclaimed ADA “tester” who from her computer in Florida hunts websites searching for ADA compliance violators has standing, allowing her to bring suit against a hotel on the southern coast of Maine, Acheson Hotels, LLC because it failed to identify handicapped accessible rooms. Laufer has filed hundreds of other ADA-related suits in federal courts from coast to coast, and standing was held regardless of the fact that Laufer had no real intention of booking a room. 


Laufer leaned heavily on Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) in which a Black plaintiff asked Havens Realty on multiple occasions whether it had any units for rent. She was told “no,” whereas when a White plaintiff asked the same question, they were told “yes.”  There the Court held there was an injury to the Black plaintiff.


Federal regulations clearly provide that hotel reservation portals must provide enough detail to allow individuals with disabilities to know what services they can enjoy, according to 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e), which Laufer alleges Acheson’s portals did not do. When a public accommodation violates the ADA and discriminates against a disabled person, the ADA and the regulations promulgated under it permit private individuals to bring enforcement actions in federal court. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a); 28 C.F.R. § 36.501.


When Laufer first visited Acheson’s website, she found that: it didn’t identify accessible rooms; didn’t provide an option for booking such an accessible room; and that it didn’t give her sufficient information to determine whether it was accessible to her. She also faced the same dearth of information when she visited the hotel’s reservation service using thirteen other third-party websites including: Expedia.com; Hotels.com; and Booking.com.


The moral of this story is to check whether your business, websites and all social media comply with the most up-to-date ADA regulations.


If you have questions about this topic, or any other general employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: